Anonymous Punishes the Oregon Tea Party

reply to post by RoboKy


I think I must have missed some details. Could you explain the "lulz" in posting a suicide victim's autopsy photo on the parents page?

Reply to post by Adevoc Satanae

I never said I found it funny, this is just what a majority of those under the banner of Anon do to generate lulz, which most of the time is humor at the expense of others. I'm sure most would find it deplorable, but I'm just stating facts here, because things like that have been done.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by RoboKy


I just figured that since you used the word "lulz" there must be something I was missing that would put that into such a category in anyone's eyes. Sorry, just thought maybe her parents caused it or something like that that might have made it at least even an interesting thing to do. Thanks.

I guess that explains why they feel the need to bully other people for using a phrase they stole themselves.

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae
reply to post by Solasis

 

Here is a question for you, when did "Anonymous" first use that phrase?

and

When did they legally copyright it?

Who the hell is talking about legal copyright? The originated it. When? It doesn't matter; it's common knowledge.

How exactly was "We aRe Legion" originally used in the bible? According to you, that is. Since the only references I can find are to the demon.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Solasis]

Originally posted by Solasis
Who the hell is talking about legal copyright?

I am. In the post you just quoted. Can you not see it?

The originated it. When? It doesn't matter; it's common knowledge.

Ummmm...when kind of does matter when it comes to "originate." Pick a year for me.

How exactly was "We aRe Legion" originally used in the bible? According to you, that is. Since the only references I can find are to the demon.

You really do not understand that quote then. Do you know what "Legion" means in that line? It has nothing to do with demons.

You know what I think would be hilarious...

Imagine if they went after all the representatives in the election...

or ran a contest for the most embarrassing facts on the candidates... then post the truth on their websites...

or say managed to get all the libertarians elected in every spot... Can imagine the two main parties not having a majority so having to deal with the libertarians...

I think it would be funny if they did it as a public service

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae

You really do not understand that quote then. Do you know what "Legion" means in that line? It has nothing to do with demons.

Then TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. This is just about the simplest thing I could have asked of you, and I did, and you ignored the request.

And my point by saying "who's talking about legal copyright" is that YOU brought that up, whereas the topic at hand does not involve legalities. It's more like if I developed a catchphrase, and then three years later you took that catchphrase and didn't admit that I had said it first. There's no legal issue, only an interpersonal issue.

Why all this bible talk? It's COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic. And how can a loose group copyright something?

It's common knowledge that it's their catchphrase, they adopted it and it is entirely in their association now. And it's also common knowledge you don't piss off Anonymous, because Anonymous is everyone and when they come together for a common cause, they get things done, hence the apology because the Tea Party knew what they were doing and recognized their mistake.

I don't think older generations could ever understand how they work. It's like a sin for a group of people to attempt something without a leader or strict organization. But I tell you what, it works a hell of a lot better than you think it would, and don't underestimate them because you have a negative view of them. And FOR THE LOVE OF GOD do not publicly undermine them, especially if you are in a position where people actually listen to you.

Originally posted by Solasis
Then TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. This is just about the simplest thing I could have asked of you, and I did, and you ignored the request.

This thread is not about bible lessons and I was not too interested in going that far off topic to explain to you what might just be the easiest line in the bible to understand. "legion" means "many." It is kind of even hinted to in the BLATANT PHRASING. You think "Legion" means demons or something because it was a Demon who said it. Sorry you do not understand the quote. If you really want a lesson on it, U2U me or start another thread.

And my point by saying "who's talking about legal copyright" is that YOU brought that up, whereas the topic at hand does not involve legalities.

I know, that is my point. They do not own the phrase. They did not ORIGINATE the phrase. They have no claim to the phrase other than using it which makes their use of it no MORE OR LESS VALID than anyone else who has used it in the past so...they are just a bunch of whiny brats getting upset over someone else using a phrase they have no right to claim ownership to.

It's more like if I developed a catchphrase, and then three years later you took that catchphrase and didn't admit that I had said it first. There's no legal issue, only an interpersonal issue.

Are you paying attention to what you just wrote????????????????????

ANONYMOUS DID NOT

NOT

NOT

DEVELOP THE CATCHPHRASE TO BEGIN WITH!!!!!!!!!

What do you not get? Anon is doing exactly what you are calling them heros for standing up for. They stole it to begin with so they have no right to bully anyone is into not using it.

Originally posted by havenvideo
Why all this bible talk? It's COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic. And how can a loose group copyright something?

Because that is where the phrase was first co-opted out of. It is a reference to Mark 5:9.

It's common knowledge that it's their catchphrase, they adopted it and it is entirely in their association now.

No it is not common knowledge. Just because they use it does not make it "entirely in their association now." How did they get to decide that anyone using it BEFORE them no longer got to use it?

And it's also common knowledge you don't piss off Anonymous, because Anonymous is everyone and when they come together for a common cause, they get things done, hence the apology because the Tea Party knew what they were doing and recognized their mistake.

No, it is common knowledge that anon will use some pretty sleazy tactics to bully a bunch of middle aged retards into not using a phrase they have no right to claim ownership to. That is what is pretty common knowledge now.

I don't think older generations could ever understand how they work. It's like a sin for a group of people to attempt something without a leader or strict organization. But I tell you what, it works a hell of a lot better than you think it would, and don't underestimate them because you have a negative view of them. And FOR THE LOVE OF GOD do not publicly undermine them, especially if you are in a position where people actually listen to you.

Funny, I did not have a negative view of anonymous at all until this thread and people you like you two getting your panties in a bunch in your eager bid to defend them doing this over something that is not even theirs to begin with. Thanks for that.

reply to post by Solasis


reply to post by havenvideo


Let me ask yet again. When exactly did Anon start using this phrase?

This is actually an important question since you both claim they own it now.

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae

Originally posted by Solasis
Then TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. This is just about the simplest thing I could have asked of you, and I did, and you ignored the request.

This thread is not about bible lessons and I was not too interested in going that far off topic to explain to you what might just be the easiest line in the bible to understand. "legion" means "many." It is kind of even hinted to in the BLATANT PHRASING. You think "Legion" means demons or something because it was a Demon who said it. Sorry you do not understand the quote. If you really want a lesson on it, U2U me or start another thread.

Wait, you think I was saying that "Legion" meant "demon"? Good lord you have terrible reading comprehension. I meant that the phrase "We Are Legion" is an allusion to the line which that particular demon said.

And my point by saying "who's talking about legal copyright" is that YOU brought that up, whereas the topic at hand does not involve legalities.

I know, that is my point. They do not own the phrase. They did not ORIGINATE the phrase. They have no claim to the phrase other than using it which makes their use of it no MORE OR LESS VALID than anyone else who has used it in the past so...they are just a bunch of whiny brats getting upset over someone else using a phrase they have no right to claim ownership to.

Your point is completely missing the entire point! The five line slogan is what's at issue, for one thing, not that individual line; and the issue is inappropriate use of it, not ownership of it.

ANONYMOUS DID NOT

NOT

NOT

DEVELOP THE CATCHPHRASE TO BEGIN WITH!!!!!!!!!

What do you not get? Anon is doing exactly what you are calling them heros for standing up for. They stole it to begin with so they have no right to bully anyone is into not using it.

I don't think I called them heroes. I am in fact positive that I did not. And this entire post just proves that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, especially this part of it. I personally never claimed that Anon owned the phrase; I just claimed that the originated it and the tea party misappropriated it. I don't personally believe anyone can own ideas in quite that way, but that's a much more complex issue.

(Also, I have no idea where you're getting this idea that they're against people BEFORE them using it. They're not even against other people using it, I'm sure, so long as they're using it correctly.)

Originally posted by Solasis
Wait, you think I was saying that "Legion" meant "demon"? Good lord you have terrible reading comprehension. I meant that the phrase "We Are Legion" is an allusion to the line which that particular demon said.

Um....no

Originally posted by Solasis
Er, no, they kind of intentionally appropriated that from the bible. They are a demon with more faces than they have masks.

Do you see what you wrote? How are they a demon? Please explain how you come to the conclusion that using the phrase "We are Legion" makes them a "demon" then???????? Good Lord you have a hard time keeping up with yourself.

Your point is completely missing the entire point! The five line slogan is what's at issue, for one thing, not that individual line; and the issue is inappropriate use of it, not ownership of it.

The Tea Party did not use all 5 lines though so what are you talking about?

I don't think I called them heroes. I am in fact positive that I did not. And this entire post just proves that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, especially this part of it. I personally never claimed that Anon owned the phrase; I just claimed that the originated it and the tea party misappropriated it. I don't personally believe anyone can own ideas in quite that way, but that's a much more complex issue.

Is English not your first language? THEY DID NOT ORIGINATE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How are you not getting this?

(Also, I have no idea where you're getting this idea that they're against people BEFORE them using it. They're not even against other people using it, I'm sure, so long as they're using it correctly.)

What? They punished the Tea Party for using it but they are not against other people using it? What?

reply to post by Solasis


WHY CANT YOU TELL ME WHEN ANONYMOUS "ORIGINATED" THIS PHRASE IF YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP INSISTING THEY DID??????

I JUST WANT A YEAR!

This is not a tough concept. You believe they have the right to get upset over other people using it because you believe they made it up (originated it) so then telling me when that happened should be really really really really easy.

reply to post by Adevoc Satanae

The earliest reference I can think of is 2007...when it became a meme during Project Chanology. It is widely known that the phrase is associated with Anonymous. The Oregon Tea Party used it knowing this.

I doubt that the phrase, in its' entirety, was coined by someone else and with a basic understanding of internet meme's I do think that The Tea Party used it out of context and for a specified ideology. Not a good idea...

Originally posted by MemoryShock
reply to post by Adevoc Satanae

 

The earliest reference I can think of is 2007...when it became a meme during Project Chanology. It is widely known that the phrase is associated with Anonymous. The Oregon Tea Party used it knowing this.

See that is the problem. It is apparently not widely known enough because when I read "We are legion" the first thing that pops into my mind is "Legacy of Kain" from 1999.

I doubt that the phrase, in its' entirety, was coined by someone else and with a basic understanding of internet meme's I do think that The Tea Party used it out of context and for a specified ideology. Not a good idea...

So do you think Paris Hilton can/should harass people who use the phrase "that's hot?"

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Adevoc Satanae]

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae
See that is the problem. It is apparently not widely known enough because when I read "We are legion" the first thing that pops into my mind is "Legacy of Kain" from 1999.

The issue wasn't with the sentence, "We are Legion."

It was with the use of the entire Anonymous meme...so I am not sure why that particular sentence is the sole point of your contention.

So do you think Paris Hilton can/should harass people who use the phrase "that's hot?"

No...but she did...bad example from you...

www.thespeciousreport.com...

blogs.wsj.com...

Anonymous isn't going to copyright anything though as they are not an organized/legal entity. It doesn't mean they aren't going to defend what they perceive as theirs though...oh the fun with the semantics of that statement...

Edit for tags.

[edit on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:38:26 -0500 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The issue wasn't with the sentence, "We are Legion."

It was with the use of the entire Anonymous meme...so I am not sure why that particular sentence is the sole point of your contention.

You are right. I just re-read the whole OP. My bad. If you read every post after that, it is easy to see where I got the impression this was just about that one line but either way my bad for not paying closer attention to the OP. I concede that now.

No...but she did...bad example from you...

Not successfully. That was my point. She tried to claim ownership and was basically slapped in the face.

Anonymous isn't going to copyright anything though as they are not an organized/legal entity. It doesn't mean they are going to defend what they perceive as theirs though...oh the fun with the semantics of the statement...

I see now that it was the entire little slogan. Seems to me the bigger point should have been "Anonymous" with a capital A. That would have made a bigger sticking point than calling it the "We are legion" slogan.

I still do not get where demons with many masks falls into that but hey. I can understand the entire slogan thingy. I honestly thought this was all about that one line. I concede.

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae
Not successfully. That was my point. She tried to claim ownership and was basically slapped in the face.

You stipulated "would/should harass"...not whether or not she would win a lawsuit...

Regardless...I am pleased that we have ironed out the misunderstanding...

Originally posted by MemoryShock
You stipulated "would/should harass"...not whether or not she would win a lawsuit...

Regardless...I am pleased that we have ironed out the misunderstanding...

No, I stipulated "could/should" which both require her being able to successfully do it. "would" is a whole other issue.

Think she could? Well she could try and she did and it failed.
Think she should? Well, no.
Think she would? Well yeah, she did try but I did not say "would"

See how easy it is to get confused?

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Adevoc Satanae]